Humoral and Cellular Response of Transplant Recipients to a Third Dose of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High rates of nonresponse to 2 doses of mRNA severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine have been reported in transplant recipients. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of a third dose in this population. However, efficacy remains unclear, as response rates vary across studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of a third dose of any mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in transplant recipients. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines (PROSPERO:CRD42021281498) were followed. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 2, 2021, without restrictions. All full-text studies reporting on the efficacy of a third dose of any mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pediatric and adult transplant recipients were included. The National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for case series and the Cochrane risk of bias tool determined study quality. Meta-analysis was performed via the DerSimonian-Laird random-effect model. RESULTS: Of 84 records, 12 studies totaling 1257 patients met inclusion criteria. One study was a randomized controlled trial, whereas all other studies were observational. Across 7 studies (801 patients), humoral response after 3 doses was observed in 66.1% (95% confidence interval, 62.8%-69.4%; I2 = 0%) of transplant recipients. Triple immunosuppression, mycophenolate, antiproliferatives, and belatacept use were associated with reduced odds of humoral response in studies reporting multivariate analyses. Transplant recipients receiving a third dose displayed higher levels of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants (Alpha, Beta, and Delta) compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine should be strongly considered in transplant recipients. Limitations included lack of controlled studies and clinically relevant thresholds to determine response to vaccination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".